What is Morality?

[Crazy Anglican]

i tagged out of this but it's hilarious that you're still talking about this.

The Bible provides guidance about how we should treat slaves. Should we be keeping slaves? The Bible says yes.

Fuck the Bible, seriously. Wow.

Oh, I guess we should have all just ceased conversation because Jamie the all-knowing left. Why would we stop just because you left?

Also, where does the Bible state that we should be keeping slaves?
As a follow up, what is the inherent problem of slavery? Is it the fact that people are working without pay? Is it the fact that people are being treated in a certain way? Is it a problem of the way in which slaves are viewed? What specifically is the moral fault of slavery? Once we establish that, we can determine whether the Bible condones said moral fault.

lol, I think I know where you were going with this, but you totally sounded like you condone slavery. You don't, right?

[CaptainFritz28]

No, not at all. I'm just saying let's examine what are the core parts of slavery that are morally wrong and see what the Bible says about them. If we see, for example, that slavery inherently leads to a view of the master being more valuable as a human than the slave (which it does), then what does the Bible say about the value of humans? Well, it says we are all created in God's image, and thus are equally valuable. This would mean that slavery is wrong, because it contradicts a core tenet of the Bible's teaching on human value.

I'm just trying to break this down to the moral principles of what makes slavery wrong, and then examining how the Bible leads us to the same conclusion.

[mOctave]

i tagged out of this but it's hilarious that you're still talking about this.

The Bible provides guidance about how we should treat slaves. Should we be keeping slaves? The Bible says yes.

Fuck the Bible, seriously. Wow.

Specifically: The Bible's guidance with slavery is:
If you are suddenly in a position where you are a slave, don't go around trying to kill your master or get revenge for the situation you are in.
If you are suddenly in a position where you are the master of slaves, don't be cruel to them, since they—spoiler alert—probably don't want to be your slave.

Guidance, as CA implied ≠ endorsement. In fact, the Old Testament is full of examples of unjust slavery (Egypt, Judah after the return to Jerusalem, etc.) Does the Bible say anything negative about how to treat slaves? I don't think so. In the Roman Empire c. 50 AD, slavery was a fact of life. It would have been absolutely radical for Paul to tell people to stop keeping slaves, and that may have been interpreted as inciting revolt on the part of the slaves, which would have gotten a lot of people needlessly killed and led to even more persecution of the Church.

[Crazy Anglican]

Guidance, as CA implied ≠ endorsement. In fact, the Old Testament is full of examples of unjust slavery (Egypt, Judah after the return to Jerusalem, etc.) Does the Bible say anything negative about how to treat slaves? I don't think so. In the Roman Empire c. 50 AD, slavery was a fact of life. It would have been absolutely radical for Paul to tell people to stop keeping slaves, and that may have been interpreted as inciting revolt on the part of the slaves, which would have gotten a lot of people needlessly killed and led to even more persecution of the Church.

I agree. The notion that the slaves were your brother was radical enough. Paul would have been in no position to tell anyone in the Roman Empire they had to free their slaves. Also the Romans were brutal in putting down slave rebellions (the Spartacus rebellion comes to mind). What was it all 6,000 or so survivors (quick wikipedia search there) crucified along the Appian way and left to rot as a warning?

[Jamiet99uk]

Sorry, I promised myself I'd keep out of this thread. I should take my own advice.

[Crazy Anglican]

No worries, man. It’s an open forum.

[CaptainFritz28]

Sorry, I promised myself I'd keep out of this thread. I should take my own advice.

I apologize for my rash response. I should've thought a bit more before posting what I did. As CA noted, you've got every right to leave and rejoin as you see fit.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

No, not at all. I'm just saying let's examine what are the core parts of slavery that are morally wrong and see what the Bible says about them. If we see, for example, that slavery inherently leads to a view of the master being more valuable as a human than the slave (which it does), then what does the Bible say about the value of humans? Well, it says we are all created in God's image, and thus are equally valuable. This would mean that slavery is wrong, because it contradicts a core tenet of the Bible's teaching on human value.

I'm just trying to break this down to the moral principles of what makes slavery wrong, and then examining how the Bible leads us to the same conclusion.

This is part of the "biblical" moral reasoning I'm skeptical about.

You're quite clearly working backwards from the notion that slavery is obviously morally wrong, then finding Biblical principles to support that view. But it seems to me that a literalist read of the Bible can be used to support either an anti- or a pro-slavery position.

I agree the Bible indirectly condemns slavery by claiming all men are created equal. But that's clearly inconsistent with other advice found in the Bible, which is *unambiguously pro-slavery*. The Bible says you are entitled to keep your Hebrew slaves for 6 years (Exodus 21:2-6) and your non-Hebrew slaves indefinitely (Leviticus 25:44-46). Slaves are directly instructed to "obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerety of heart, just as you would obey Christ" (Ephesians 6:5-9). This advice gets repeated a bunch, such as in 1 Timothy 6:1-2 "All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered." and 1 Peter 2:18-25 "Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."

This sounds like both guidance and endorsement of slavery as an institution. At a minimum, it directly condemns those slaves would resist their masters, and its a historical fact that the institution of slavery doesn't end unless slaves resist.

It takes quite a bit of Biblical interpretation to decide to ignore these direct quotes and instead preference a view that Jesus' teachings are incompatible with slavery. Obviously some amount of the Bible reflects that backwardness of the society that wrote it - but how does that square with the view that every word is divinely inspired? It's hard for me to understand how the Bible can be seen as an objective source of perfect morality when it clearly contains passages that literally say slaves are the problem if they don't submit to even unusually harsh masters.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Why God Wants you to Own Slaves

The Bible, through its unambiguous scriptures, not only acknowledges but also endorses the institution of slavery, presenting it as a divinely sanctioned aspect of societal order. Passages like Exodus 21:2-6 and Leviticus 25:44-46 detail the regulations for slavery, distinguishing between Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves, thus affirming its acceptance and regulation by God. The New Testament reinforces this stance, with verses such as Ephesians 6:5-9 and 1 Timothy 6:1-2 directing slaves to obey their masters with respect and sincerity. These instructions extend beyond cultural norms of the era, representing a clear endorsement of the master-slave relationship as part of the divine plan.

The biblical endorsement of slavery fits within a broader divine hierarchy, where each individual’s role is ordained by God. Titus 2:9-10 emphasizes the necessity of slaves submitting to their masters, integral for maintaining social harmony. This is not merely a social construct; it reflects God’s perfect design for human society. Spiritual equality in Christ, as mentioned in Galatians 3:28, does not contradict this ordained social structure. The spiritual realm and earthly roles, as per the Bible, coexist, with slavery being a part of the latter.

Thus, in the 21st century, adhering to the Biblical endorsement of slavery is paramount for upholding the social and moral order as intended by God. The Bible’s clear guidance on slavery is not a historical relic but a relevant, divinely inspired mandate. Maintaining this institution as outlined in Scripture is essential for aligning with God’s plan, underlining the importance of slavery as a key element in the divinely sanctioned social hierarchy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No doubt another Christian can cherry pick their own list of Bible-based arguments that seek to explain away or invalidate the Bible's clear guidance re: slavery. But we've already established that no Christian gets the final say on the right interpretation of the Bible, so by what authority do they claim that their anti-slavery read is more "biblical" than this pro-slavery argument?

Like Fritz, I think moral relativity is a bad idea. But the insight I'm getting into Christian moral philosophy through this thread is that it's almost totally subjective. The process seems to be:

(i) get a moral intuition from yourself or your culture, like non-religious people do, and/or be inspired to some moral issue by *your* subjective read of the Bible

(ii) find parts of the Bible that directly support that view and, where that's not possible, reinterpret parts of the Bible that *might* conceivably fit that view

(iii) find creative ways to ignore or deemphasize those parts of the Bible that directly contradict your view and carefully denigrate perfectly-plausible alternative interpretations that don't support your view - thankfully there's an inexhaustible number of ways to "contextualize" the Bible, so you will ALWAYS have some way to creatively emphasize some parts while ignoring others

(iv) Claim that your view is objective, Biblically-inspired, and superior to any other view

(v) Try your best to truly believe that this is a good faith exercise aimed at figuring out what God meant in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance of recognizing that you're using the concept of God and a selective reading of the Bible to embolden your personal view on a moral issue without actually making any serious moral arguments

[CaptainFritz28]

No, not at all. I'm just saying let's examine what are the core parts of slavery that are morally wrong and see what the Bible says about them. If we see, for example, that slavery inherently leads to a view of the master being more valuable as a human than the slave (which it does), then what does the Bible say about the value of humans? Well, it says we are all created in God's image, and thus are equally valuable. This would mean that slavery is wrong, because it contradicts a core tenet of the Bible's teaching on human value.

I'm just trying to break this down to the moral principles of what makes slavery wrong, and then examining how the Bible leads us to the same conclusion.

This is part of the "biblical" moral reasoning I'm skeptical about.

You're quite clearly working backwards from the notion that slavery is obviously morally wrong, then finding Biblical principles to support that view. But it seems to me that a literalist read of the Bible can be used to support either an anti- or a pro-slavery position.

On the contrary, my belief in the immorality of slavery is founded in the Bible first, from which I take the aforementioned notion. Otherwise, the belief that slavery is wrong is just a subjective personal assumption. I began this specifically by stating that slavery was wrong first, because I was addressing Jamie, who was coming from a position of assumptions not based in the Bible. So I was saying, "let's look at your assumption, then let's look at the Bible, and we can see if your assumption matches up with the Bible."

I agree the Bible indirectly condemns slavery by claiming all men are created equal. But that's clearly inconsistent with other advice found in the Bible, which is *unambiguously pro-slavery*. The Bible says you are entitled to keep your Hebrew slaves for 6 years (Exodus 21:2-6) and your non-Hebrew slaves indefinitely (Leviticus 25:44-46). Slaves are directly instructed to "obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerety of heart, just as you would obey Christ" (Ephesians 6:5-9). This advice gets repeated a bunch, such as in 1 Timothy 6:1-2 "All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered." and 1 Peter 2:18-25 "Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."

First of all, if we are going to look at slavery from the standpoint of the Hebrews in the Old Testament, let's look at it in its entire context. Historically, the laws to the Hebrews were to set them apart from the nations around them. Some laws, like the ability to divorce one's wife, were given to them not because God wanted to, but because otherwise the Hebrews would revolt against God. these laws were written specifically to the Old Testament nation of Israel. Not all the Old Testament laws are of this nature, but a good number of them are (the book of Leviticus, for example, was written to the tribe of the Levites).
Regardless, let's look at what the book of Exodus says about slaves:
"Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death" -Exodus 21:16
"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged." -Exodus 21:20
"When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth." -Exodus 21:26-27

These laws are within the context of a person selling themselves into slavery for the purpose of paying a debt. If a slave was taken by kidnapping, that was immoral. Thus, any slavery which forces a person into slavery by kidnapping is evil, which includes the entirety of the trans Atlantic slave trade. Also, any slave which was harmed by their master was to be set free, and if a slave was killed by their master, the master was to be punished for it.
If we take specifically the commands of the Old testament, and a section written for the Hebrews, then we might conclude that the selling of oneself into slavery to pay a debt is moral. The same thing happens when anyone goes into debt, it just isn't called slavery. By nature, when you take debt, you are consigning yourself to work to pay someone else, and not receive the pay yourself. But kidnapping and the treating or viewing of a slave as any less than anyone else is immoral. So if we use that to judge the world's slavery, it's still immoral.

Regarding the verses in the New Testament, you have not once responded to our clear refutation of this, even though multiple of us have stated this.
The New Testament gives guidance on how to act if you are a slave. It includes not murdering, stealing, or doing anything else that is immoral for anyone else, because you are just as much a human as anyone else and therefore just as responsible for your actions. To say "slaves, revolt and kill your masters so that you are set free" would be totally inconsistent with the rest of the Bible's teaching on how to act as a Christian. But telling slaves to act morally just like everyone else, or to obey their masters, does not condone slavery.
Also, as has been stated already, the Bible commands Christians not to respond with violence to persecution. By your logic, that would condone the persecution of Christians as an institution, even though that is clearly not what the Bible is saying. It's simply stating that "If you are being oppressed, here is how you should act." That doesn't mean that the oppression is good.

This sounds like both guidance and endorsement of slavery as an institution. At a minimum, it directly condemns those slaves would resist their masters, and its a historical fact that the institution of slavery doesn't end unless slaves resist.

You are making an equivocation here. The slavery of the Hebrews in the Old Testament that was considered moral, being the selling of oneself into slavery to pay a debt, is nowhere near similar to the "institution of slavery" that included the trans Atlantic slave trade or slavery nowadays. They are two totally separate things, and even then, the slavery of the Hebrews was a command given specifically to them at that time in history.
Also, slavery ends when moral people outlaw it. Examples: Britain, the United States, and Europe. Slave revolts, if successful, do end slavery, but it is a lie to say that the resistance of slaves is the only way in which slavery ends.

It takes quite a bit of Biblical interpretation to decide to ignore these direct quotes and instead preference a view that Jesus' teachings are incompatible with slavery. Obviously some amount of the Bible reflects that backwardness of the society that wrote it - but how does that square with the view that every word is divinely inspired? It's hard for me to understand how the Bible can be seen as an objective source of perfect morality when it clearly contains passages that literally say slaves are the problem if they don't submit to even unusually harsh masters.

It takes quite a bit of ignorance to ignore the rest of the Bible and history and instead preference a view that the five verses your brought up, all devoid of any context, prove that the Bible condones and supports all slavery.

Here you make a false dichotomy. Saying that the Bible says that slaves are "the" problem implies that there is only one problem, which would mean that either the master or the slave is at fault, and whichever one is not must be right. This is entirely opposite of the Bible's teaching. Sure, it is wrong for a slave to kill their master or try to revolt. If a master is unusually harsh, or harsh at all for that matter, then the master is doing evil. It is also wrong for that master to beat the slave or treat them as anything less than a brother, and a human equally valuable to themself, and it is wrong for anyone to kidnap someone to be sold into slavery.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

No, not at all. I'm just saying let's examine what are the core parts of slavery that are morally wrong and see what the Bible says about them. If we see, for example, that slavery inherently leads to a view of the master being more valuable as a human than the slave (which it does), then what does the Bible say about the value of humans? Well, it says we are all created in God's image, and thus are equally valuable. This would mean that slavery is wrong, because it contradicts a core tenet of the Bible's teaching on human value.

I'm just trying to break this down to the moral principles of what makes slavery wrong, and then examining how the Bible leads us to the same conclusion.

This is part of the "biblical" moral reasoning I'm skeptical about.

You're quite clearly working backwards from the notion that slavery is obviously morally wrong, then finding Biblical principles to support that view. But it seems to me that a literalist read of the Bible can be used to support either an anti- or a pro-slavery position.

On the contrary, my belief in the immorality of slavery is founded in the Bible first, from which I take the aforementioned notion. Otherwise, the belief that slavery is wrong is just a subjective personal assumption. I began this specifically by stating that slavery was wrong first, because I was addressing Jamie, who was coming from a position of assumptions not based in the Bible. So I was saying, "let's look at your assumption, then let's look at the Bible, and we can see if your assumption matches up with the Bible."

I agree the Bible indirectly condemns slavery by claiming all men are created equal. But that's clearly inconsistent with other advice found in the Bible, which is *unambiguously pro-slavery*. The Bible says you are entitled to keep your Hebrew slaves for 6 years (Exodus 21:2-6) and your non-Hebrew slaves indefinitely (Leviticus 25:44-46). Slaves are directly instructed to "obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerety of heart, just as you would obey Christ" (Ephesians 6:5-9). This advice gets repeated a bunch, such as in 1 Timothy 6:1-2 "All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered." and 1 Peter 2:18-25 "Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."

First of all, if we are going to look at slavery from the standpoint of the Hebrews in the Old Testament, let's look at it in its entire context. Historically, the laws to the Hebrews were to set them apart from the nations around them. Some laws, like the ability to divorce one's wife, were given to them not because God wanted to, but because otherwise the Hebrews would revolt against God. these laws were written specifically to the Old Testament nation of Israel. Not all the Old Testament laws are of this nature, but a good number of them are (the book of Leviticus, for example, was written to the tribe of the Levites).
Regardless, let's look at what the book of Exodus says about slaves:
"Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death" -Exodus 21:16
"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged." -Exodus 21:20
"When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth." -Exodus 21:26-27

These laws are within the context of a person selling themselves into slavery for the purpose of paying a debt. If a slave was taken by kidnapping, that was immoral. Thus, any slavery which forces a person into slavery by kidnapping is evil, which includes the entirety of the trans Atlantic slave trade. Also, any slave which was harmed by their master was to be set free, and if a slave was killed by their master, the master was to be punished for it.
If we take specifically the commands of the Old testament, and a section written for the Hebrews, then we might conclude that the selling of oneself into slavery to pay a debt is moral. The same thing happens when anyone goes into debt, it just isn't called slavery. By nature, when you take debt, you are consigning yourself to work to pay someone else, and not receive the pay yourself. But kidnapping and the treating or viewing of a slave as any less than anyone else is immoral. So if we use that to judge the world's slavery, it's still immoral.

Regarding the verses in the New Testament, you have not once responded to our clear refutation of this, even though multiple of us have stated this.
The New Testament gives guidance on how to act if you are a slave. It includes not murdering, stealing, or doing anything else that is immoral for anyone else, because you are just as much a human as anyone else and therefore just as responsible for your actions. To say "slaves, revolt and kill your masters so that you are set free" would be totally inconsistent with the rest of the Bible's teaching on how to act as a Christian. But telling slaves to act morally just like everyone else, or to obey their masters, does not condone slavery.
Also, as has been stated already, the Bible commands Christians not to respond with violence to persecution. By your logic, that would condone the persecution of Christians as an institution, even though that is clearly not what the Bible is saying. It's simply stating that "If you are being oppressed, here is how you should act." That doesn't mean that the oppression is good.

This sounds like both guidance and endorsement of slavery as an institution. At a minimum, it directly condemns those slaves would resist their masters, and its a historical fact that the institution of slavery doesn't end unless slaves resist.

You are making an equivocation here. The slavery of the Hebrews in the Old Testament that was considered moral, being the selling of oneself into slavery to pay a debt, is nowhere near similar to the "institution of slavery" that included the trans Atlantic slave trade or slavery nowadays. They are two totally separate things, and even then, the slavery of the Hebrews was a command given specifically to them at that time in history.
Also, slavery ends when moral people outlaw it. Examples: Britain, the United States, and Europe. Slave revolts, if successful, do end slavery, but it is a lie to say that the resistance of slaves is the only way in which slavery ends.

It takes quite a bit of Biblical interpretation to decide to ignore these direct quotes and instead preference a view that Jesus' teachings are incompatible with slavery. Obviously some amount of the Bible reflects that backwardness of the society that wrote it - but how does that square with the view that every word is divinely inspired? It's hard for me to understand how the Bible can be seen as an objective source of perfect morality when it clearly contains passages that literally say slaves are the problem if they don't submit to even unusually harsh masters.

It takes quite a bit of ignorance to ignore the rest of the Bible and history and instead preference a view that the five verses your brought up, all devoid of any context, prove that the Bible condones and supports all slavery.

Here you make a false dichotomy. Saying that the Bible says that slaves are "the" problem implies that there is only one problem, which would mean that either the master or the slave is at fault, and whichever one is not must be right. This is entirely opposite of the Bible's teaching. Sure, it is wrong for a slave to kill their master or try to revolt. If a master is unusually harsh, or harsh at all for that matter, then the master is doing evil. It is also wrong for that master to beat the slave or treat them as anything less than a brother, and a human equally valuable to themself, and it is wrong for anyone to kidnap someone to be sold into slavery.

I'm glad we're getting to see the steps in action lol.

How did you come to your Biblically-inspired belief that slavery is wrong? How could you have read those passages about slavery and not thought, at least plausibly, that God was regulating the institution of slavery because it has some divine merit? A lot of historical Christians came to the opposite conclusion about the Bibles advice re: slavery - how can I know you're right and they're wrong?

Very recently we were told by you that all you needed to do was read the Bible, no interpretation required. Well obviously you're willing to make exceptions when we get to a thorny issue like when the Bible says a bunch of questionable things about slavery - now we have our excuse to say "context, context, context" until we feel as though we've sufficiently denigrated the literal word of God to such an extent that we can interpret away / ignore certain problematic parts of the Bible.

"To say 'slaves, revolt and kill your masters so that you are set free' would be totally inconsistent with the rest of the Bible's teaching on how to act as a Christian."

And herein lies the problem. You're again making convenient and selective arguments using the Bible, when the actual text is more complicated. Christians are told in various instances in the Bible to use righteous violence against all sorts of injustices. For example, in the Old Testament, the Israelites are commanded in books like Joshua and Deuteronomy to engage in battles against their adversaries, often leading to the complete defeat (and even genocide) of their enemies. This is divine sanction of violence in certain contexts of justice and warfare. Furthermore, in the New Testament, Jesus' act of overturning tables in the Temple (Matthew 21:12-13) is a notable example of righteous indignation and violence against corruption and injustice. Of course, these passages contradict the pacifist teachings elsewhere in the Bible, such as Jesus' sermon on the mount (Matthew 5:38-42), where he teaches turning the other cheek and loving one's enemies. This juxtaposition presents a complex picture of the Bible's stance on violence. Yet, when discussing slavery, there seems to be a more consistent expectation of submission and endurance, as seen in Ephesians 6:5-8 and 1 Peter 2:18, and not righteous resistance. This selective adherence to pacifism, especially concerning the enslavement of individuals, seems to me like a deep inconsistency in the broader biblical narrative about justice and resistance to oppression.

[CaptainFritz28]

Why God Wants you to Own Slaves

The Bible, through its unambiguous scriptures, not only acknowledges but also endorses the institution of slavery, presenting it as a divinely sanctioned aspect of societal order. Passages like Exodus 21:2-6 and Leviticus 25:44-46 detail the regulations for slavery, distinguishing between Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves, thus affirming its acceptance and regulation by God. The New Testament reinforces this stance, with verses such as Ephesians 6:5-9 and 1 Timothy 6:1-2 directing slaves to obey their masters with respect and sincerity. These instructions extend beyond cultural norms of the era, representing a clear endorsement of the master-slave relationship as part of the divine plan.

I already went over this, but since you repeated it I might as well too.

The passages in the Old Testament refer to commands given by God to the Hebrews specifically at a certain point in history, because otherwise they would revolt. Even if we apply them today, we see that the only form of slavery that would be moral would be the selling of oneself into slavery to pay a debt, which is not very different to working to pay off a debt in the first place. However you look at it, slavery as it is considered nowadays is evil.

The passages in the New Testament support the idea that slaves should be moral too, even if their masters do evil to them. This is not unique to slaves, but is a command given to all Christians, that if you are persecuted and oppressed, do not return evil for evil. This does not mean that the persecution and oppression of Christians is moral, nor does it mean that slavery is moral. It is a guideline for how to act if evil is done to you.

The biblical endorsement of slavery fits within a broader divine hierarchy, where each individual’s role is ordained by God. Titus 2:9-10 emphasizes the necessity of slaves submitting to their masters, integral for maintaining social harmony. This is not merely a social construct; it reflects God’s perfect design for human society. Spiritual equality in Christ, as mentioned in Galatians 3:28, does not contradict this ordained social structure. The spiritual realm and earthly roles, as per the Bible, coexist, with slavery being a part of the latter.

Does God have a design for society? Yes. Does God tell me that if I am suddenly made a slave, I should not go around killing my masters? Yes. Does this mean that slavery is a part of God's design for society? No. That conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Thus, in the 21st century, adhering to the Biblical endorsement of slavery is paramount for upholding the social and moral order as intended by God. The Bible’s clear guidance on slavery is not a historical relic but a relevant, divinely inspired mandate. Maintaining this institution as outlined in Scripture is essential for aligning with God’s plan, underlining the importance of slavery as a key element in the divinely sanctioned social hierarchy.

Again, this is an extreme equivocation, and quite the obvious fallacy.
The slavery of the Hebrews time was limited to debt paying via slavery. Any form of kidnapping was wrong, including kidnapping slaves. Any form of mistreatment of slaves was wrong.
Slavery now is an entirely different matter, entirely based on kidnapping and mistreatment.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No doubt another Christian can cherry pick their own list of Bible-based arguments that seek to explain away or invalidate the Bible's clear guidance re: slavery. But we've already established that no Christian gets the final say on the right interpretation of the Bible, so by what authority do they claim that their anti-slavery read is more "biblical" than this pro-slavery argument?

Considering that your arguments are based on fallacies, and that you take the quoted verses out of all historical and Biblical context, the authority I claim comes from... logic, and reading the rest of the chapter. Anyone may come up with an argument which cites Scripture, but that does not mean that the argument is in any way coherent or correct. I could claim that the Bible condones murder since Jesus was murdered but it turned out for good, and it would still be absurd even though I used an example from the Bible.

Like Fritz, I think moral relativity is a bad idea. But the insight I'm getting into Christian moral philosophy through this thread is that it's almost totally subjective. The process seems to be:

If it is subjective, as you say, then we have two options:
1. Accept the Bible, a written and codified set of morals which at least have a claim of authority from God, and has a history of doing the most good for the world compared to any other standard.
2. Accept... anything else, which is also subjective, according to you, has no reason to claim superiority, and thus is no better an alternative.

(i) get a moral intuition from yourself or your culture, like non-religious people do, and/or be inspired to some moral issue by *your* subjective read of the Bible

(ii) find parts of the Bible that directly support that view and, where that's not possible, reinterpret parts of the Bible that *might* conceivably fit that view

(iii) find creative ways to ignore or deemphasize those parts of the Bible that directly contradict your view and carefully denigrate perfectly-plausible alternative interpretations that don't support your view - thankfully there's an inexhaustible number of ways to "contextualize" the Bible, so you will ALWAYS have some way to creatively emphasize some parts while ignoring others

(iv) Claim that your view is objective, Biblically-inspired, and superior to any other view

(v) Try your best to truly believe that this is a good faith exercise aimed at figuring out what God meant in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance of recognizing that you're using the concept of God and a selective reading of the Bible to embolden your personal view on a moral issue without actually making any serious moral arguments

That is what you did. You came up with a notion, decided to squeeze a few verses out of context to fit your notion, ignored everything else, claimed it was based on truth, and pretended it is Biblical.
This is also the form of argument of a Christian hypocrite and heretic.

The best way I can explain how to study the Bible is as follows:
(i) Believe that the Bible is God's Word, and legitimately desire to learn moral instruction from God and obey it.
(ii) Read the Bible with said desire.
(iii) Read the rest of the Bible.
(iv) If a passage is unclear or seems inconsistent with the rest of the Bible, learn its historical context. If it remains unclear, learn the etymology of the words.
(v) Discuss with others with the intent of finding the objective truth which God gives.
(vi) Live out the moral instruction and don't be a hypocrite.

Let's see... where did you go wrong? Well, it looks like you messed up on steps... i, iii, iv, v, and vi. Also on the more important half of step ii, but hey, 0.5 out of 6 ain't too bad! It's better than many do.

Crazy A can add to my method of proper Bible study, as I'm sure I missed a step, but in general this is how I try to go about it, or at least this is how I should go about it. As far as application to everyday life goes, it's a matter of knowing the Bible and its principles well enough to make decisions which are in tune with what you know the Bible says. If you find out that you were wrong, well, fix the mistake if possible, or else take note of it to learn for next time. There is grace, after all.

[CaptainFritz28]

This is part of the "biblical" moral reasoning I'm skeptical about.

You're quite clearly working backwards from the notion that slavery is obviously morally wrong, then finding Biblical principles to support that view. But it seems to me that a literalist read of the Bible can be used to support either an anti- or a pro-slavery position.

On the contrary, my belief in the immorality of slavery is founded in the Bible first, from which I take the aforementioned notion. Otherwise, the belief that slavery is wrong is just a subjective personal assumption. I began this specifically by stating that slavery was wrong first, because I was addressing Jamie, who was coming from a position of assumptions not based in the Bible. So I was saying, "let's look at your assumption, then let's look at the Bible, and we can see if your assumption matches up with the Bible."

I agree the Bible indirectly condemns slavery by claiming all men are created equal. But that's clearly inconsistent with other advice found in the Bible, which is *unambiguously pro-slavery*. The Bible says you are entitled to keep your Hebrew slaves for 6 years (Exodus 21:2-6) and your non-Hebrew slaves indefinitely (Leviticus 25:44-46). Slaves are directly instructed to "obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerety of heart, just as you would obey Christ" (Ephesians 6:5-9). This advice gets repeated a bunch, such as in 1 Timothy 6:1-2 "All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered." and 1 Peter 2:18-25 "Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."

First of all, if we are going to look at slavery from the standpoint of the Hebrews in the Old Testament, let's look at it in its entire context. Historically, the laws to the Hebrews were to set them apart from the nations around them. Some laws, like the ability to divorce one's wife, were given to them not because God wanted to, but because otherwise the Hebrews would revolt against God. these laws were written specifically to the Old Testament nation of Israel. Not all the Old Testament laws are of this nature, but a good number of them are (the book of Leviticus, for example, was written to the tribe of the Levites).
Regardless, let's look at what the book of Exodus says about slaves:
"Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death" -Exodus 21:16
"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged." -Exodus 21:20
"When a man strikes the eye of his slave, male or female, and destroys it, he shall let the slave go free because of his eye. If he knocks out the tooth of his slave, male or female, he shall let the slave go free because of his tooth." -Exodus 21:26-27

These laws are within the context of a person selling themselves into slavery for the purpose of paying a debt. If a slave was taken by kidnapping, that was immoral. Thus, any slavery which forces a person into slavery by kidnapping is evil, which includes the entirety of the trans Atlantic slave trade. Also, any slave which was harmed by their master was to be set free, and if a slave was killed by their master, the master was to be punished for it.
If we take specifically the commands of the Old testament, and a section written for the Hebrews, then we might conclude that the selling of oneself into slavery to pay a debt is moral. The same thing happens when anyone goes into debt, it just isn't called slavery. By nature, when you take debt, you are consigning yourself to work to pay someone else, and not receive the pay yourself. But kidnapping and the treating or viewing of a slave as any less than anyone else is immoral. So if we use that to judge the world's slavery, it's still immoral.

Regarding the verses in the New Testament, you have not once responded to our clear refutation of this, even though multiple of us have stated this.
The New Testament gives guidance on how to act if you are a slave. It includes not murdering, stealing, or doing anything else that is immoral for anyone else, because you are just as much a human as anyone else and therefore just as responsible for your actions. To say "slaves, revolt and kill your masters so that you are set free" would be totally inconsistent with the rest of the Bible's teaching on how to act as a Christian. But telling slaves to act morally just like everyone else, or to obey their masters, does not condone slavery.
Also, as has been stated already, the Bible commands Christians not to respond with violence to persecution. By your logic, that would condone the persecution of Christians as an institution, even though that is clearly not what the Bible is saying. It's simply stating that "If you are being oppressed, here is how you should act." That doesn't mean that the oppression is good.

This sounds like both guidance and endorsement of slavery as an institution. At a minimum, it directly condemns those slaves would resist their masters, and its a historical fact that the institution of slavery doesn't end unless slaves resist.

You are making an equivocation here. The slavery of the Hebrews in the Old Testament that was considered moral, being the selling of oneself into slavery to pay a debt, is nowhere near similar to the "institution of slavery" that included the trans Atlantic slave trade or slavery nowadays. They are two totally separate things, and even then, the slavery of the Hebrews was a command given specifically to them at that time in history.
Also, slavery ends when moral people outlaw it. Examples: Britain, the United States, and Europe. Slave revolts, if successful, do end slavery, but it is a lie to say that the resistance of slaves is the only way in which slavery ends.

It takes quite a bit of Biblical interpretation to decide to ignore these direct quotes and instead preference a view that Jesus' teachings are incompatible with slavery. Obviously some amount of the Bible reflects that backwardness of the society that wrote it - but how does that square with the view that every word is divinely inspired? It's hard for me to understand how the Bible can be seen as an objective source of perfect morality when it clearly contains passages that literally say slaves are the problem if they don't submit to even unusually harsh masters.

It takes quite a bit of ignorance to ignore the rest of the Bible and history and instead preference a view that the five verses your brought up, all devoid of any context, prove that the Bible condones and supports all slavery.

Here you make a false dichotomy. Saying that the Bible says that slaves are "the" problem implies that there is only one problem, which would mean that either the master or the slave is at fault, and whichever one is not must be right. This is entirely opposite of the Bible's teaching. Sure, it is wrong for a slave to kill their master or try to revolt. If a master is unusually harsh, or harsh at all for that matter, then the master is doing evil. It is also wrong for that master to beat the slave or treat them as anything less than a brother, and a human equally valuable to themself, and it is wrong for anyone to kidnap someone to be sold into slavery.

I'm glad we're getting to see the steps in action lol.

How did you come to your Biblically-inspired belief that slavery is wrong? How could you have read those passages about slavery and not thought, at least plausibly, that God was regulating the institution of slavery because it has some divine merit? A lot of historical Christians came to the opposite conclusion about the Bibles advice re: slavery - how can I know you're right and they're wrong?

By reading the Bible, including the rest of the chapters around the verses quoted, then by looking at the historic setting of said chapters. This is part of the steps I laid out in my other post.

Very recently we were told by you that all you needed to do was read the Bible, no interpretation required. Well obviously you're willing to make exceptions when we get to a thorny issue like when the Bible says a bunch of questionable things about slavery - now we have our excuse to say "context, context, context" until we feel as though we've sufficiently denigrated the literal word of God to such an extent that we can interpret away / ignore certain problematic parts of the Bible.

You're right, I mischaracterized what I thought was obvious. When reading anything, you use basic logic and context clues to understand what you are reading. So no, reading it, in a general sense of the word, is not enough. Reading it with the intent to learn from it, and with the belief that it is true, is enough. Then, if it is unclear, context is useful, and deliberating with others who have the intent to learn from it and with the belief of its truth is also a good thing. And again, when you begin with your own assumption only to use the Bible to prove said assumption, you go down the route of a heretic. Assumptions should be formed off of the Bible's teaching, not the other way around.

I'll put it this way: saying "reading the Bible however you wish is all you need" is a way of interpreting my statements that was not my intent, but is a valid interpretation of what I said. Unlike the Bible, I am fallible, so I apologize for not being clear.

My meaning was this: However you choose to interpret the Bible does not change the truth of what the Bible says or what it really means, making it objective. Whether your interpretation of it is in line with what it means is a matter of believing that there is an objective meaning, studying the Bible to find that meaning, looking at its context, fellowship with other believers, and using basic logic. Obviously, I believe that my interpretation is accurate to what it means. Otherwise, I wouldn't believe it. If you use logic, history, and context to prove to me that my interpretation is flawed, and if you show me that your intent is to truly come to the objective true meaning, then I will have to concede that my interpretation is flawed, and find a more accurate way of interpreting it.

Thus, many people have false or erroneous interpretations. That doesn't change the true objective meaning. It just means that proper study was not done.

"To say 'slaves, revolt and kill your masters so that you are set free' would be totally inconsistent with the rest of the Bible's teaching on how to act as a Christian."

And herein lies the problem. You're again making convenient and selective arguments using the Bible, when the actual text is more complicated. Christians are told in various instances in the Bible to use righteous violence against all sorts of injustices. For example, in the Old Testament, the Israelites are commanded in books like Joshua and Deuteronomy to engage in battles against their adversaries, often leading to the complete defeat (and even genocide) of their enemies. This is divine sanction of violence in certain contexts of justice and warfare. Furthermore, in the New Testament, Jesus' act of overturning tables in the Temple (Matthew 21:12-13) is a notable example of righteous indignation and violence against corruption and injustice. Of course, these passages contradict the pacifist teachings elsewhere in the Bible, such as Jesus' sermon on the mount (Matthew 5:38-42), where he teaches turning the other cheek and loving one's enemies. This juxtaposition presents a complex picture of the Bible's stance on violence. Yet, when discussing slavery, there seems to be a more consistent expectation of submission and endurance, as seen in Ephesians 6:5-8 and 1 Peter 2:18, and not righteous resistance. This selective adherence to pacifism, especially concerning the enslavement of individuals, seems to me like a deep inconsistency in the broader biblical narrative about justice and resistance to oppression.

Ah! Now we have gotten to the fun part. Here is the question at hand - if your government oppresses you, do you have a responsibility to stop it?

The answer, I think, is this:
If the oppression extends only to you, then endure it, for it is an injustice being done only to you. This is inline with the "turn the other cheek" and "endure suffering peaceably" teachings.
If the oppression extends to others, whether Christian or not, then it is a Christian's responsibility to end it, because it is an injustice being done to others. If at all possible, this is to be achieved through peaceful means, but if it is necessary, violent opposition to the oppression of others is warranted. For example, Moses' killing the Egyptian guard that was beating the Hebrew slave.
If the government is acting immorally, against the commandments of God, then it is a Christian's responsibility to stop it. Again, if possible, this is to be done peacefully, but again, if necessary, violence may be the only possible solution. So for example, Jesus' cleansing of the Temple was a violent resistance to the government's (or in this case the Jewish leaders') opposition to the laws of God. In the case of the Hebrews in the promised land, the same logic can be applied. These were nations that collectively denied and disobeyed God. Thus, God chose the Israelites to be His tool to punish them, while also fulfilling the covenant He had made with Abraham.

In short, if you are being oppressed, but only you are being oppressed, then it is your place to endure it, and to count the lives and comfort of others above yourself. If others are being oppressed, then it is your responsibility to stop it; if possible, peacefully. If the government disobeys the laws of God, then again it is your responsibility to stop it, and again, peacefully if possible.
If this isn't consistent with the Bible, please explain how so that I may correct it.

Thus, the endurance of a slave as seen in the verses you quoted falls under the first category, where you turn the other cheek to injustice committed against you, enduring as Christ did. That doesn't mean that it isn't still injustice.

Also, I denote that you are considering slaves here as if they were their own separate category of people, exempt from moral instruction given to everyone else. Why should they be treated any differently? Are they not just as human and morally accountable to their own actions as anyone else?

[Jamiet99uk]

I already went over this, but since you repeated it I might as well too.

The passages in the Old Testament refer to commands given by God to the Hebrews specifically at a certain point in history, because otherwise they would revolt.

Oh shit, here I am again, but seriously:

1. Why were those Hebrews, at that point in history, subject to a totally different ethical code, from God, than the ethical code he would apply at any other time?

2. Does this not invalidate your claim that the Bible provides a robust, stable, un-changing ethical framework?

3. You say God is all-powerful. Why was he afraid of the Hebrews revolting against his instructions, to the extent that he had to modify morality to suit them and avoid upsetting them? "Otherwise they would revolt?" You're telling us God changed his moral viewpoint to avoid upsetting some Hebrews??? A God who is afraid of some Hebrews being cross with him is really obviously not a very potent God at all. Wow.

[Jamiet99uk]

God literally drowned every human except Noah and Mrs Noah. The Bible is full of God killing thousands of people for almost no reason other than his capricious whim.

God could have murdered every single last one of those revolting slave-keeping Hebrews if he wanted.

[Jamiet99uk]

"Oh no, I have some absolute moral rules I intended all my creations to follow, but I can't apply those rules in this particular case because some Hebrews would revolt!!. Oh my, I'll just have to change morality to suit them. I'm not very powerful after all!"

[CaptainFritz28]

You're right. That wouldn't make sense. I am probably wrong about that, and I haven't really done much research on that topic specifically, so that in particular was said without any specific backing. I'll do a bit of study and get back to you on this.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Fritz, your interpretation of the Bible's stance on slavery is subjective, much like those of other devout Christians who, historically, have used the same scriptures to support slavery. They had Scriptural arguments too. They used Bible history and even some extra etymology for good measure to back up their claims. This extra stuff in addition to Scripture (history, context, reverse translation) isn't evidence because it can't actually be tested against reality (no one can ask God "is this what you meant?" and have others believe He really answered you in particular).

While you argue that biblical slavery pertains only to a specific, less harsh form, this interpretation isn't explicitly stated in the Bible. The Bible doesn’t state that its teachings on slavery are confined to the historical context of the Hebrews, leading to multiple plausible interpretations. Pro-slavery Christians in the 19th century used the same scriptures to justify chattel slavery in the American South. Abolitionists also used the Bible to argue against any form of slavery, highlighting the subjectivity in interpreting these texts.

How can we determine which interpretation is more 'biblical' when the Bible itself allows for such diverse understandings?

What allows us to assume that some rules in the Bible apply only to God's people and in the historical context of Antiquity, while other parts are strongly presumed to be universal? I'm surprised at the text we got in the Bible if God actually meant "slavery is going to be considered morally okay only as a means of debt repayment in Antiquity societies, but once you find better ways to intermediate lending you have to stop it"?

How do we differentiate between what the Bible describes as historical practice and what it prescribes as doctrinal teaching, especially in cases like slavery?

If the correct interpretation of the Bible is predicated on making impetrative leaps based on pieces of historical evidence, what happens if the evidence gets lost to history? If history had forgotten how Hebrews kept their slaves (e.g., something like the Library of Alexandria burning), would the passages in the Bible re: slavery be even more morally ambiguous? Could we just not know the rightness or wrongness of slavery then?

Historical facts that get used to back up biblical claims, unlike the words in the Bible, aren't selected by God. So how can we know when they point to a divine truth? Was God incapable of communicating in a manner that did not require further conjecture from historical evidence? Given that God is omniscient, why would He deliver a message in a form that is so open to varied interpretations, especially on critical moral issues like slavery?

[Jamiet99uk]

You're right. That wouldn't make sense. I am probably wrong about that, and I haven't really done much research on that topic specifically, so that in particular was said without any specific backing. I'll do a bit of study and get back to you on this.

Fair.

[mOctave]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

Where are we getting our moral view that slavery = bad from? I'm not saying it isn't bad, but this view of morality has to come from one of only a few places:
General public consensus: Do we only disapprove of slavery because most people around us do? This seems cynical, but I personally think it's the most likely here. We learn what is right from our parents, friends, teachers, and other role models. In general, these people have told us that slavery is wrong... so is that what makes it wrong?
"Divine" inspiration: By this I mean any external and non-human source which imparts morality on us, whether it be God or a natural force that we cannot possibly understand in our present state.
Inherent morality: Of course, this comes from either a parental or divine source, so I won't touch on it much.
Logical reason: If we're getting our morality from logic, what are we assuming in order to arrive at our moral beliefs? Are we assuming that if something causes pain or other negative feelings to more people than it causes positive feelings, it is moral? Is saving lives moral? What about euthanasia? Who taught us what to base our reasoning on? Fritz, for example, is reasoning based on the premise of truth in the Bible and the existence of a God that fits our current moral beliefs.

Obviously, all of our perceptions of morality are influenced by those around us or by a divine source. I would argue that this suggests that our morality is circumstantial and isn't really applicable to something thousands of years old. Who are we to judge with our present-day morality acts which were conducted in good faith according to a past morality? Of course, they may not have followed people's personal beliefs, but it seems to me that people took slavery for granted 3000 years ago. It did not offend them morally, and so it was not an immoral action at the time. In the present day, of course, their actions were immoral, but they weren't when they were committed.

P.S. Someone please invent some new verb tenses that work with multiple times at once.